Emissions target costly Albanese’s net zero pledge promises to take major toll
HAS ‘ Albo’ bitten off more than he can chew?
After a summer bounce in the polls with Twitter and most of the media cheering him on, Labor leader Anthony Albanese has set a net zero promise for carbon emissions by 2050.
If that seems like a long way off, it is – 10 elections to be precise, and unlike former party leader Bill Shorten’s plan for 45 per cent emission reductions by 2030, Albanese’s new target is economy wide.
Albanese used similar promises made by state governments and 85 other countries to make his target seem like it’s where the world is heading. But he might want to look a little deeper into some of those countries before thinking he’s got this one in the bag.
Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland and the United Kingdom all have nuclear power.
Norway still drills for oil in the Arctic and the European Union import huge amounts of oil from Russia.
Chile, Costa Rica and Iceland get most of their energy from pumped hydro, like we do from the Snowy Mountains and that’s where most of Tasmania’s power comes from.
Albanese said his target would cover all aspects of the economy.
But countries Ireland, Sweden and even New Zealand have so far omitted their agricultural sectors from their plans.
Does this mean Australia should do nothing?
No, and Australia is not sitting idle. As signatories to the Paris agreement we aim to cut up to 27 per cent of emissions by 2030 without mass changes to all sectors of the economy.
In a horror interview with my mate David Speers on the ABC, Albanese didn’t baulk when told of what it would cost to change our whole system to renewables.
A 2017 report by the CSIRO predicted it would cost a staggering one trillion dollars to fully update our system to one which can produce, store and transmit renewable power by 2050.
During the interview with Speers, Albanese said: “Well this is research that’s being done. And the CSIRO research, of course, like every other bit of research, shows that there will be higher growth, higher wages, lower energy costs if we go down this road”.
But that’s not the point. You have to spend billions to build the infrastructure to then provide the changes he’s banking on.
Albanese also didn’t flinch when told of the Business Council of Australia’s predictions that it will cost $660 billion to transfer our economy to net zero by 2050.
I have used these pages, not to argue against the need for action on climate change, but to talk of the costs.
A Newspoll out this week showed that 50 per cent of Australians aren’t willing to pay anything more to deal with climate change.
This is Labor’s biggest problem. The change they have set will cost staggering amounts of money and any ‘transition’ will cost thousands of jobs.
There are 54,000 in the coal industry alone.
It’s one thing to make promises you will never be around to keep, it’s another to think they don’t come at a cost.
My suggestion is based on every real, reliable poll I’ve seen and the results of last year’s election.
It looks like the first to pay the cost will be Labor’s hope of taking control any time soon.
Twitter isn’t real life; people struggling to keep their jobs and pay their bills is.
A NEWSPOLL OUT THIS WEEK SHOWED THAT 50 PER CENT OF AUSTRALIANS AREN’T WILLING TO PAY ANYTHING MORE TO DEAL WITH CLIMATE CHANGE.